PLENARY

The Chair, Satya Nandan, opened the morning session by asking
delegates to examine the revised negotiating text
(A/CONF.164/13/Rev.1) section-by-section with the aim of completing
this part of the process by Wednesday. He then invited comments on
the preamble.

PREAMBLE: The Russian Federation said that the preamble
broadly reflects the negotiations of the March session. Still
lacking in the preamble are paragraphs dealing with the outstanding
UNCLOS problems relating to straddling fish stocks and highly
migratory fish stocks, the specific rights of coastal States, and
the exclusion of Part IX dealing with enclosed and semi-enclosed
seas.

The representative of Ukraine welcomed the Chair's efforts to
establish international cooperation on conservation and management
of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. He said
the significance of UNCLOS needs to be more precisely introduced in
the preamble. Ukraine supported the Russian Federation in properly
reflecting the rights of coastal States.

The delegation of China asked that reference to Agenda 21 be
amended to refer to Chapter 17, and that the enhanced reflection be
extended toward Programme Areas "C" and "D" of Agenda 21. Since the
question of jurisdiction exists not only on the high seas but also
in the EEZs, it is necessary to refer to "living marine resources".
Changing the emphasis of sustainability to sustainable utilization
of fish resources would better reflect other environmental and
natural factors.

The European Union, supported by Korea, Mexico, and Poland,
suggested deletion of the reference to high seas fisheries in the
third preambular paragraph. The EU delegate said matters of escape
control are better treated by compliance with international
conservation and management measures, as preferentially reflected
in Agenda 21 and covered in the FAO's agreement.

The delegate of Thailand said the fishing capacity of a fleet is
more important than its size. He could not support provisions
suggesting that a coastal State could exercise any jurisdiction
beyond its EEZ.

The delegate from Peru supported the Chair's preambular text, but
suggested that if the Conference agreed to refine it, appropriate
alternative language could be extrapolated from paragraphs 4 and 6
in Ecuador's proposal (A/CONF.164/L.44*).

Mexico said the preamble should include reference to the FAO's Code
of Conduct and the Cancun Declaration. It would be beneficial to
define the norms of responsible fishing at the world level. The
delegate from Mauritania supported Mexico and Indonesia for
inclusion of a reference to responsible fishing as promoted by the
Cancun Declaration. Mexico and Indonesia asked that the preamble
recognize the special rights of developing countries.

The delegate from New Zealand disagreed with the EU, Japan, Norway
and Chile, and said he could support reference to recalling the
adoption of the FAO agreement in the preambular, but not to
endorsing the agreement. New Zealand and its South Pacific
colleagues underlined their concerns of the FAO agreement being
inappropriate, unlawful and possibly contrary to UNCLOS in
excluding vessels under 24 meters. The United States, with
concurrence from FAO, said that the FAO agreement applies to all
vessels, including those under 24 meters, with the exception of
certain administrative requirements.

Canada associated itself with Mexico, Peru and others and said it
could not accept re-opening debate on the Conference mandate.

Ecuador objected to attempts to delete references to the high seas
and to attempts to include references to the EEZs. He added that
delegates cannot become oracles in the ministry of truth and
rewrite history.

The delegate from Australia supported New Zealand in underlining
the FAO agreement's shortcomings. Australia said reference to the
high seas both in respect of the Conference mandate and Agenda 21
should be maintained.

The Chair said the Conference was making "heavy weather" of the
preamble. He did not favor a long preamble as found in UNCLOS. The
Conference is concerned with implementing the Law of the Sea. A
practical approach should identify workable mechanisms.

Peru, supported by Uruguay, suggested that a final compromise might
be to include the words "to complement the relevant provisions" in
the penultimate paragraph of the preamble.

SECTION I -- OBJECTIVE: In consideration of Section I, the
EU delegate said that the final sentence repeats the obligation
that arises within UNCLOS for coastal States and flag States to
cooperate in conservation and management measures, and therefore is
not complementary to the Convention. The delegate from Japan said
he preferred the text as presented. New Zealand supported the
objective, but asked that the text be broadened to include issues
of by-catch, non-target species and associated species. The
delegate of the Russian Federation suggested that article 4 of the
Ecuador proposal defines a better objective.

SECTION II -- APPLICATION: The Chair said that several
paragraphs of section III on general principles could be included
in the discussion of section II. Poland, supported by Korea,
suggested amendments to make it more consistent with paragraph 1
that recognizes the concept of biological unity, and to mention the
whole range of the stocks as field of application. Chile regretted
attempts to blur the distinction between high seas and EEZs, and
called for a clause protecting the sovereignty of the coastal
States. Argentina concurred by saying that the scope of
application had previously been agreed generally and that
introducing too many changes to the negotiating text was not
helpful. Brazil insisted that the rights and duties of States
should not be separated. Ecuador asked that the exceptional
character of the application in the EEZ be reinforced.

SECTION III -- GENERAL PRINCIPLES: Japan said that many of
the measures listed in sub-paragraphs B and C (precautionary
approach and compatibility) could apply both to high seas and EEZs,
but that this should also be true for sub-paragraph A on the nature
of conservation and management measures. There are only a few
provisions in A that would not apply in the EEZ, such as 3(g) on
sharing of data and 3(k) on discrimination, but the other
provisions should apply to both zones since they deal with general
principles. Other distant water fishing States supported this
proposal to respect the biological unity of the stocks. This view
was supported by the EU who said that the formulation needs to be
more general, while respecting the sovereignty of the coastal
States. The obligation of the coastal States in their EEZ should be
made more specific and refer to an obligation to conserve.

Canada likened this attempt to put more burden on the coastal
States as "salami tactics" on the part of the distant water fishing
States, while Peru said they had an obstructionist attitude. The
Chair called on all participants to calm down and said that the
issue of compatibility could be solved if it is looked at in a
practical way. Coastal States and distant fishing States exchanged
rhetorical arguments throughout the afternoon.

While some delegates understood the need for compatibility between
measures in the EEZ and on the high seas, they highlighted the fact
that this should not lead to measures being identical, since some
measures taken on the high seas may not be applicable to the EEZs.
Canada suggested, and Australia and Indonesia concurred, that
paragraph 3 be split to reflect the concerns of coastal States and
where the former part A would apply exclusively to the high seas.
It might then be necessary to add an additional clause to note that
"nothing in this convention shall be construed as prejudicing the
sovereign rights of the coastal States ...". India added that while
this amendment was a helpful suggestion, it should not apply to the
paragraphs dealing with the special requirements of developing
States and scientific research. The US said that the sovereignty of
the coastal States in their EEZs should in no way be compromised,
but that the general principles in section III(A) should apply in
both the EEZ and on the high seas.

China asked that a footnote be added to explain that "high seas"
refers to the area beyond 200 miles. The Chair noted that this
addresses cases where the coastal State has not declared an
exclusive zone, but added that he was not sure that such a footnote
would solve the problem. Russia suggested that "beyond the EEZ" be
added after "on the high seas". It was highlighted that several
other terms need to be defined carefully in view of the settlement
of disputes that will arise. Canada suggested that they be inserted
after the preamble and before the objective. Japan said that UNCLOS
had listed highly migratory species without defining them and
warned against inconsistency, but Russia answered that this
imprecision was partly to blame for the fisheries crisis.

Brazil asked why paragraph 3(a) referred to economic factors as
well as the best scientific evidence. The Chair answered that this
was derived from article 61 of UNCLOS. India said that a reference
to the best scientific evidence might not apply to developing
States, and both Brazil and Sweden asked whether it was wise to
retain such an old concept as that of MSY. Sweden suggested that
reference be made to the long-term sustainability of fisheries.

Brazil said that nowhere in the text is mention made of special
conservation areas, and he suggested that they might be established
wherever oceanic ecosystems are recognized for their importance to
the life cycle of the stocks.

Mexico suggested that the recommendations in III(A)(c) and (d) on
species associated with target species and selective gear be dealt
with through appropriate information on by-catch. Thailand and
Papua New Guinea asked that the reference to the number of vessels
be replaced with the capacity of vessels.